Miranda rights for terrorists..

[AmericasBrave58]

washingtonpost.com


In my book, when you commit a terrorist act, you must face the music and pay the ultimate price, and deal with what ever punishment comes your way.Like it or not.Terrorists are criminals and deserve nothing less than hanging, firing Squad or a life time stay in the Brig(Big House with bars.

 

[waltky]

Terrorists to get delayed Miranda warnings...

Federal Agents Told They Can Delay Miranda Warnings in Some Cases
Thursday, March 24, 2011 Washington (AP) - The FBI has issued new guidance to its agents in terrorism investigations, emphasizing that law enforcement investigators can question suspected terrorists without immediately reading them their Miranda rights in some instances.

In a statement, the Justice Department says it formalized the guidance last year, focusing on the fact that there is a public safety exception allowing investigators to put off Miranda warnings when there is immediate concern for the safety of the public.

The guidance was issued months after Attorney General Eric Holder offered to work with Congress on a law that would let law enforcement delay constitutional Miranda warnings to terror suspects.

The Wall Street Journal first reported on the guidance.

Source

 

[jillian]

washingtonpost.com


In my book, when you commit a terrorist act, you must face the music and pay the ultimate price, and deal with what ever punishment comes your way.Like it or not.Terrorists are criminals and deserve nothing less than hanging, firing Squad or a life time stay in the Brig(Big House with bars.

but don't you have to be adjudicated a terrorist first? it's kind of backward to say, well it hasn't been proven *yet* but you lose your rights... so then you can be adjudicated a terrorist without us following the rules.

I do take issue with the shoot first, ask questions later mentality.

 

[P F Tinmore]

washingtonpost.com


In my book, when you commit a terrorist act, you must face the music and pay the ultimate price, and deal with what ever punishment comes your way.Like it or not.Terrorists are criminals and deserve nothing less than hanging, firing Squad or a life time stay in the Brig(Big House with bars.

but don't you have to be adjudicated a terrorist first? it's kind of backward to say, well it hasn't been proven *yet* but you lose your rights... so then you can be adjudicated a terrorist without us following the rules.

I do take issue with the shoot first, ask questions later mentality.

Good point. We could lose our rights just because someone in the government says so?

Who could be a terrorist?

Anyone who owns a gun?

Anyone who quotes the constitution?

 

[docmauser1]

Good point. We could lose our rights just because someone in the government says so? Who could be a terrorist? Anyone who owns a gun? Anyone who quotes the constitution?

We aren't bullshitting about Gaza, are we?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Magna Carta (1297)

"...here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break. This reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which men have held it.

--Winston Churchill, 1956

King John of England agreed, in 1215, to the demands of his barons and authorized that handwritten copies of Magna Carta be prepared on parchment, affixed with his seal, and publicly read throughout the realm. Thus he bound not only himself but his "heirs, for ever" to grant "to all freemen of our kingdom" the rights and liberties the great charter described. With Magna Carta, King John placed himself and England's future sovereigns and magistrates within the rule of law.

When Englishmen left their homeland to establish colonies in the New World, they brought with them charters guaranteeing that they and their heirs would "have and enjoy all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects." Scant generations later, when these American colonists raised arms against their mother country, they were fighting not for new freedoms but to preserve liberties that dated to the 13th century.

When representatives of the young republic of the United States gathered to draft a constitution, they turned to the legal system they knew and admired--English common law as evolved from Magna Carta. The conceptual debt to the great charter is particularly obvious: the American Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the Land," just as the rights granted by Magna Carta were not to be arbitrarily canceled by subsequent English laws.

This heritage is most clearly apparent in our Bill of Rights. The fifth amendment guarantees

No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Written 575 years earlier, Magna Carta declares

No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned,...or in any other way destroyed...except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to none will we deny or delay, right or justice.

While the Great Charter does not speak to the right of counsel, our laws do and any suspension of habeas corpus puts all of us at risk. Better to offer the rights of man to all for if the evidence is properly collected and presented justice will be done, preventing any man from honestly questioning the values we hold true as Americans.

 

[jillian]

Good point. We could lose our rights just because someone in the government says so? Who could be a terrorist? Anyone who owns a gun? Anyone who quotes the constitution?

We aren't bullshitting about Gaza, are we?

well, i wasn't referring to gaza. i was referring to our means of adjudicating terror suspects.

i'm all for throwing away the key on anyone who's a terrorist, domestic or otherwise, but I think we have to play by the rules to get to the conclusion that they *are* terrorists.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Good point. We could lose our rights just because someone in the government says so? Who could be a terrorist? Anyone who owns a gun? Anyone who quotes the constitution?

We aren't bullshitting about Gaza, are we?

well, i wasn't referring to gaza. i was referring to our means of adjudicating terror suspects.

i'm all for throwing away the key on anyone who's a terrorist, domestic or otherwise, but I think we have to play by the rules to get to the conclusion that they *are* terrorists.

I was referring to the US but rights should be universal.

 

[JBeukema]

washingtonpost.com


In my book, when you commit a terrorist act, you must face the music and pay the ultimate price, and deal with what ever punishment comes your way.Like it or not.Terrorists are criminals and deserve nothing less than hanging, firing Squad or a life time stay in the Brig(Big House with bars.

Since you're a paedophile and a serial rapist, you don't deserve to be Mirandized

How do I know you've raped 72 babies? Because I accuse you of it and that means you're guilty. You must face the music and pay the ultimate price, and deal with what ever punishment comes your way

Also, you've been plotting to go on a shooting spree and kill as many Christians as possible.

Don't listen to Jihad Brave, everyone. Jihad Brave is clearly a child-molesting rapist, serial killer, and terrorist. Surely, you aren't a terrorist-lover, are you? Brave deserves no miranda rights or trial. It's in the interest if national security, you see...

 

[JBeukema]

washingtonpost.com


In my book, when you commit a terrorist act, you must face the music and pay the ultimate price, and deal with what ever punishment comes your way.Like it or not.Terrorists are criminals and deserve nothing less than hanging, firing Squad or a life time stay in the Brig(Big House with bars.

but don't you have to be adjudicated a terrorist first? it's kind of backward to say, well it hasn't been proven *yet* but you lose your rights... so then you can be adjudicated a terrorist without us following the rules.

I do take issue with the shoot first, ask questions later mentality.

Innocent people are never accused, Jillian. Don't you understand anything about conservatism? Don't you love America?

 

[Liability]

Abdul, the terrorist, is captured planting a bomb (one of several which are located and disarmed) on a NY City Subway train. Had his plan come to fruition, thousands of people would have died at pretty much the same instant.

Because he is caught IN the USA (yes, the NYC Subway is within our borders and part of us), many say that Abdul is only an ALLEGED terrorist. He is thus entitled to by God RIGHTS, including the right to counsel, a trial, the right to remain silent and the right to be advised of his right to remain silent.

Would he be entitled to these same rights if he was to be treated as a mere illegal enemy combatant instead of as a "criminal?"

How about if he was captured on the field of battle in some overseas hot spot? Upon being captured in the process of planting some highly lethal bomb directed at a U.S. military base, is it the belief of the folks in this god-forsaken Administration that he is actually entitled to be given fucking Miranda warnings?

Isn't that exactly the kind of mullahfukkah we WANT to interrogate? But no? Instead we tell him ALL about his alleged "right" not to speak with us at all? Are the folks running this Government out of their fucking minds?

 

[JBeukema]

Abdul, the terrorist, is captured planting a bomb

As opposed to mailing one?

Ted Kaczynski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JBeukema]

How about if he was captured on the field of battle in some overseas hot spot?

What if you had?

Nobody gets any rights any more- after all, anyone can be 'what if he'd been caught in a warzone'd.

He committed a criminal act in the U.S. He's no different than the unabomber or the Weatherman Underground

 

[JBeukema]

Isn't that exactly the kind of mullahfukkah we WANT to interrogate? But no? Instead we tell him ALL about his alleged "right" not to speak with us at all? Are the folks running this Government out of their fucking minds?

So the Hutaree should be tortured and given no rights, since they might know of a teabagger somewhere who might want to be the next Timothy McVeigh?

What if that kid downloading movies talked to a hacker/pirate who told him Anon was going to launch a cyber attack against the airlines that might possibly crash a plane? Better deny him his rights and torture him to be sure.

​

 

[signelect]

Years ago when we were being tested by the terrorist to see what our reactions were to their acts we lost the fight. If we had taken the first high jacker of the plane nd shot him on the tarmac this would all have been over and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

When you break into my house, listen carefully to the Miranda rights, if you can hear them above the sound of gunfire.

 

[Sallow]

washingtonpost.com


In my book, when you commit a terrorist act, you must face the music and pay the ultimate price, and deal with what ever punishment comes your way.Like it or not.Terrorists are criminals and deserve nothing less than hanging, firing Squad or a life time stay in the Brig(Big House with bars.

What about terrorist supporters?

 

[jillian]

Innocent people are never accused, Jillian. Don't you understand anything about conservatism? Don't you love America?

if only that were true. then we wouldn't need this:


The Innocence Project - Home

 

[JBeukema]

Don't ya know that's all bleeding heart liberal propaganda?

If they weren't guilty, they wouldn't be accused

We should lose the courts and go from arrest straight to execution

 

[Liability]

Isn't that exactly the kind of mullahfukkah we WANT to interrogate? But no? Instead we tell him ALL about his alleged "right" not to speak with us at all? Are the folks running this Government out of their fucking minds?

So the Hutaree should be tortured and given no rights, since they might know of a teabagger somewhere who might want to be the next Timothy McVeigh?

What if that kid downloading movies talked to a hacker/pirate who told him Anon was going to launch a cyber attack against the airlines that might possibly crash a plane? Better deny him his rights and torture him to be sure.

​

I didn't say jack shit about torture, in the first place. So your "so" makes no fucking sense.

I also didn't state ANY conclusion. I asked questions (and with subtle use of profanity, I also did imply at least a hint of my own views on the topic).

I understand your concerns. I am also not arguing that your concerns are unreasonable. I AM suggesting that there is some dangerous irony involved.

We all engage in accepting the legal fiction (to some degree or another) that people accused of crimes are "innocent until proved guilty." But it is a fiction. Very often the motherfuckers ARE guilty and there isn't the slightest doubt in the universe. So what? They are STILL entitled to a "presumption of innocence." However, that's for CRIMINALITY within the context of a legal system.

I contend that this is NOT the case with terrorists. If Abdul is found in the act of committing sabotage, for example, that is the kind of "act of war" that used to entitle the saboteur to summary execution. Ditto that for spies. EVERY fucking act of a terrorist from al fucking qaeda is such an act. They all violate the rules and customs of war. They are non uniformed motherfuckers. They intentionally target civilians AS their preferred method of warfare. They are the worst combination of enemy saboteurs and spies.

And sometimes they might be expected to have significant information we urgently need to prevent one of their intended atrocities. We'd kinda sorta like to find out about that shit. So we politely ASK them. They are rude shitfuckers, however. They impolitely decline to answer us. How stupid and ironic is it to tell them they have some alleged "right" to remain silent under those circumstances? Fuck that. They have no such right nor should they.

"Abdul, you camel-humping scumbag, you have the right to eat hot lead, mullahfukkah. You have no fucking right to remain silent. You barely have any right to even breathe at this point. We are going to calmly and politely offer you a chance to answer some of our questions. Let's make a deal. You answer fully and accurately and without any hint of deception, and we will honor your right to keep your nuts attached. Do you understand that, scumbag?"

Ok. NOW I'm talking about a threat of torture. It's still inconsistent with offering Abdul some Miranda warnings.

 

[JBeukema]

However, that's for CRIMINALITY within the context of a legal system.

Last I checked, bombing people was illegal. See: unabomber

I contend that this is NOT the case with terrorists

A meaningless term. Teddy, Timmy, and the Hutaree were criminals like any other, regardless of what deranged beliefs led them to criminal behavior.

. If Abdul is found in the act of committing sabotage, for example, that is the kind of "act of war" that used to entitle the saboteur to summary execution.

Can you prove he was acting as the agent of an enemy agent? If not, he's no different than the Weatherman Underground or some punk kid who fucks up a railroad track to strike a blow against the evil capitalist system or whatever he rambles on about.

Ditto that for spies. EVERY fucking act of a terrorist from al fucking qaeda is such an act.

Al Queda differs from the Hutaree how, exactly? The colour of their skin? The specific brand of religious extremism?

If someone is caught in a warzone engaging in war against our troops, then they are enemy troops thus caught. Anyone caught commiting a criminal act in our nation, regardless of where they're from (that bullshit 'diplomatic immunity' crap excluded) is a criminal to be tried in the courts for their crimes. It really is that simple.

They all violate the rules and customs of war. They are non uniformed motherfuckers. They intentionally target civilians AS their preferred method of warfare. They are the worst combination of enemy saboteurs and spies.

Sounds to me like they're no different than the kids at Columbine: murderers attacking unarmed persons for their own batshit insane reasons

And sometimes they might be expected to have significant information we urgently need to prevent one of their intended atrocities.

We can't interrogate criminals? We don't know how to get quality information without violating the principles we swore to uphold in Geneva? Especially with torture being known to result in a lot of bad info?

Ok. NOW I'm talking about a threat of torture.

So fuck Geneva? We should be more like Saddam?

I mean, it's not like America's supposed to stand for anything or be better than, say, the soviets